diff -r 860f05037c36 -r fe7a257bdff4 thys/turing_hoare.thy
--- a/thys/turing_hoare.thy	Wed Jan 30 02:29:47 2013 +0000
+++ b/thys/turing_hoare.thy	Wed Jan 30 03:33:05 2013 +0000
@@ -10,6 +10,10 @@
 where
   "P \<mapsto> Q \<equiv> \<forall>l r. P (l, r) \<longrightarrow> Q (l, r)"
 
+lemma [intro, simp]:
+  "P \<mapsto> P"
+unfolding assert_imp_def by simp
+
 fun 
   holds_for :: "(tape \<Rightarrow> bool) \<Rightarrow> config \<Rightarrow> bool" ("_ holds'_for _" [100, 99] 100)
 where
@@ -57,24 +61,23 @@
 
 
 text {*
-  {P1} A {Q1}   {P2} B {Q2}  Q1 \<mapsto> P2   A well-formed
-  ---------------------------------------------------
-  {P1} A |+| B {Q2}
+  {P} A {Q}   {Q} B {S}  A well-formed
+  -----------------------------------------
+  {P} A |+| B {S}
 *}
 
 
-lemma Hoare_plus_halt [case_names A_halt B_halt Imp A_wf]: 
-  assumes A_halt : "{P1} A {Q1}"
-  and B_halt : "{P2} B {Q2}"
-  and a_imp: "Q1 \<mapsto> P2"
+lemma Hoare_plus_halt [case_names A_halt B_halt A_wf]: 
+  assumes A_halt : "{P} A {Q}"
+  and B_halt : "{Q} B {S}"
   and A_wf : "tm_wf (A, 0)"
-  shows "{P1} A |+| B {Q2}"
+  shows "{P} A |+| B {S}"
 proof(rule Hoare_haltI)
   fix l r
-  assume h: "P1 (l, r)"
+  assume h: "P (l, r)"
   then obtain n1 l' r' 
     where "is_final (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)"  
-      and a1: "Q1 holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)"
+      and a1: "Q holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)"
       and a2: "steps0 (1, l, r) A n1 = (0, l', r')"
     using A_halt unfolding Hoare_halt_def
     by (metis is_final_eq surj_pair) 
@@ -82,48 +85,37 @@
     where "steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n2 = (Suc (length A div 2), l', r')"
     using A_wf by (rule_tac tm_comp_pre_halt_same) 
   moreover
-  from a1 a2 a_imp have "P2 (l', r')" by (simp add: assert_imp_def)
+  from a1 a2 have "Q (l', r')" by (simp)
   then obtain n3 l'' r''
     where "is_final (steps0 (1, l', r') B n3)" 
-    and b1: "Q2 holds_for (steps0 (1, l', r') B n3)"
+    and b1: "S holds_for (steps0 (1, l', r') B n3)"
     and b2: "steps0 (1, l', r') B n3 = (0, l'', r'')"
     using B_halt unfolding Hoare_halt_def 
     by (metis is_final_eq surj_pair) 
   then have "steps0 (Suc (length A div 2), l', r')  (A |+| B) n3 = (0, l'', r'')"
     using A_wf by (rule_tac tm_comp_second_halt_same) 
   ultimately show 
-    "\<exists>n. is_final (steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n) \<and> Q2 holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n)"
+    "\<exists>n. is_final (steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n) \<and> S holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n)"
     using b1 b2 by (rule_tac x = "n2 + n3" in exI) (simp)
 qed
 
-lemma Hoare_plus_halt_simple [case_names A_halt B_halt A_wf]: 
-  assumes A_halt : "{P1} A {P2}"
-  and B_halt : "{P2} B {P3}"
-  and A_wf : "tm_wf (A, 0)"
-  shows "{P1} A |+| B {P3}"
-by (rule Hoare_plus_halt[OF A_halt B_halt _ A_wf])
-   (simp add: assert_imp_def)
-
-
-
 text {*
-  {P1} A {Q1}   {P2} B loops    Q1 \<mapsto> P2   A well-formed
-  ------------------------------------------------------
-          {P1} A |+| B  loops
+  {P} A {Q}   {Q} B loops   A well-formed
+  ------------------------------------------
+          {P} A |+| B  loops
 *}
 
-lemma Hoare_plus_unhalt [case_names A_halt B_unhalt Imp A_wf]:
-  assumes A_halt: "{P1} A {Q1}"
-  and B_uhalt: "{P2} B \<up>"
-  and a_imp: "Q1 \<mapsto> P2"
+lemma Hoare_plus_unhalt [case_names A_halt B_unhalt A_wf]:
+  assumes A_halt: "{P} A {Q}"
+  and B_uhalt: "{Q} B \<up>"
   and A_wf : "tm_wf (A, 0)"
-  shows "{P1} (A |+| B) \<up>"
+  shows "{P} (A |+| B) \<up>"
 proof(rule_tac Hoare_unhaltI)
   fix n l r 
-  assume h: "P1 (l, r)"
+  assume h: "P (l, r)"
   then obtain n1 l' r'
     where a: "is_final (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)" 
-    and b: "Q1 holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)"
+    and b: "Q holds_for (steps0 (1, l, r) A n1)"
     and c: "steps0 (1, l, r) A n1 = (0, l', r')"
     using A_halt unfolding Hoare_halt_def 
     by (metis is_final_eq surj_pair) 
@@ -132,12 +124,12 @@
   then show "\<not> is_final (steps0 (1, l, r) (A |+| B) n)"
   proof(cases "n2 \<le> n")
     case True
-    from b c a_imp have "P2 (l', r')" by (simp add: assert_imp_def)
+    from b c have "Q (l', r')" by simp
     then have "\<forall> n. \<not> is_final (steps0 (1, l', r') B n)  "
       using B_uhalt unfolding Hoare_unhalt_def by simp
-    then have "\<not> is_final (steps0 (Suc 0, l', r') B (n - n2))" by auto
+    then have "\<not> is_final (steps0 (1, l', r') B (n - n2))" by auto
     then obtain s'' l'' r'' 
-      where "steps0 (Suc 0, l', r') B (n - n2) = (s'', l'', r'')" 
+      where "steps0 (1, l', r') B (n - n2) = (s'', l'', r'')" 
       and "\<not> is_final (s'', l'', r'')" by (metis surj_pair)
     then have "steps0 (Suc (length A div 2), l', r') (A |+| B) (n - n2) = (s''+ length A div 2, l'', r'')"
       using A_wf by (auto dest: tm_comp_second_same simp del: tm_wf.simps)
@@ -155,19 +147,8 @@
   qed
 qed
 
-lemma Hoare_plus_unhalt_simple [case_names A_halt B_unhalt A_wf]: 
- assumes A_halt: "{P1} A {P2}"
-  and B_uhalt: "{P2} B \<up>"
-  and A_wf : "tm_wf (A, 0)"
-  shows "{P1} (A |+| B) \<up>"
-by (rule Hoare_plus_unhalt[OF A_halt B_uhalt _ A_wf])
-   (simp add: assert_imp_def)
-
-
-lemma Hoare_weaken:
-  assumes a: "{P} p {Q}"
-  and b: "P' \<mapsto> P" 
-  and c: "Q \<mapsto> Q'"
+lemma Hoare_consequence:
+  assumes "P' \<mapsto> P" "{P} p {Q}" "Q \<mapsto> Q'"
   shows "{P'} p {Q'}"
 using assms
 unfolding Hoare_halt_def assert_imp_def